To be presented online at 26th World Korea Forum, University of Nairobi, Kenya, on August 6 to 7, 2025
The Secret of President Park Chung Hee’s Korean Miracle: What African can learn from Korea.
Sung-Hee Jwa, May 22, 2025
Visiting Professor at Ajou University Graduate School of International Studies,
Former Chairman of the Park Chung Hee Foundation & Former President of the Korea Economic Research Institute.
Introduction
President Park Chung Hee is often hailed as the leader who successfully industrialized South Korea. However, industrialization is not achieved by pursuing industrialization alone; it is the outcome of comprehensive national governance. This paper, therefore, provides a holistic understanding of the dynamics between economic development and politics, as well as President Park’s national governance strategies, to analyze the causes and achievements of the industrialization and economic miracle during his era.
1. Understanding the Dynamics of Economic Development and Politics
1) The Role of Markets and Corporations in Economic Development: Motivation through Economic Differentiation
Economic development is the process by which all citizens escape poverty and achieve prosperity. The state must create pathways for citizens to become wealthy and motivate them to pursue these paths diligently. Since citizens are the ones who create national wealth, the state must provide incentives and guidance to enable them to excel in this task. Corporations, as key sources of wealth creation, should be supported and encouraged to grow into large enterprises through greater effort, inspiring small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to engage in wealth-creation competition.
Moreover, in the market, we consistently select and support individuals or corporations that deliver superior performance. The market serves as an exemplar of the principle of shin-sang-pil-beol (信賞必罰, rewarding the meritorious and punishing the underperforming), motivating all citizens to participate in the race to prosperity. Corporations reinforce this market function by favoring high-productivity talent and transacting only with excellent firms, a process termed economic differentiation (Jwa, 2017a).
However, a society that fails to support citizens’ efforts to become wealthy or resents those striving to outdo others or corporations aiming to grow larger can never become prosperous. Policies that hinder wealth creation or corporate growth discourage others from engaging in the competition for success. If large corporations are regulated merely for being large and SMEs are supported solely for being small, performance becomes irrelevant, and the race to prosperity fades. This would result in an economy dominated by SMEs with few corporations growing into large enterprises.
2) The Role of Democratic Politics and Government in Economic Development: Economizing Politics through Economic Differentiation
Economics and political science have yet to clearly define the role of politics or government in economic development. They struggle to explain why developing countries’ democracies fail in economic development or why advanced democracies face low growth and polarization. The compatibility of democracy and market economies remains theoretically unresolved.
Markets and corporations, by their nature, prioritize economic differentiation and do not guarantee economic equality. If markets and corporations cannot reward performance differentially, they lose their motivational function, fostering sabotage and halting national economic development. Thus, capitalist market economies enable collective growth but not equality. Pursuing an equal economy contradicts economic development. Ignoring this principle, socialist systems that eliminated the selective functions of markets and corporations collapsed, as seen in the Soviet economy and North Korea’s failure. According to the author’s research, the economic polarization and low growth in advanced democracies and South Korea today result from pursuing economic equality (Jwa, 2017a, 2024b).
Politicians champion democracy, equality, and support for the weak, but in markets, they instinctively seek superior products, favoring the strong over the weak. Humans cannot escape this selective instinct. Ordinary citizens also make differential choices in markets but dislike the resulting disparities. Politicians, seeking votes, and citizens, disliking disparities, collude to produce democratic institutions and policies that neutralize the market’s differentiation function. This erodes citizens’ motivation to work, diminishes self-reliance, and worsens growth and distribution. Political power becomes a tool for wealth redistribution, intensifying political and social conflicts. This explains the global phenomena of low growth, polarization, and democratic failure, including in South Korea (Jwa, 2024b).
The role of democratic politics or government in national development is to create institutions and policies that enable self-helping, hardworking citizens to prosper, mirroring the functions of markets and corporations. A nation where diligent individuals are not duly rewarded cannot achieve prosperity or economic development. The more people rely on direct government support due to blocked pathways to wealth, the more economic development is delayed. A nation thrives when it is filled with citizens who succeed through self-help, enabling collective growth.
When democratic politics understands and institutionally supports the market economy’s differentiation function, it can be said to have “economized politics.” Conversely, when politics ignores performance and pursues economic equality, the “economy becomes politicized.” The former fosters economic development, while the latter leads to economic failure (Jwa, 2017a, 2024b, 2025).
2. President Park Chung Hee’s National Governance Strategy
1) Practicing the Principle of Economic Differentiation: Strong Pro-Market Leadership
Throughout his tenure, President Park emphasized the Western adage, “Heaven helps those who help themselves,” and the Oriental Legalist principle of shin-sang-pil-beol in both economic and social policies. These principles, which reward the meritorious and punish the underperforming, are another expression of the market’s differentiation function (Jwa, 2017a).
By directly applying this market function to policies, Park strengthened the often-weak market’s differential reward system in developing countries, promoting competition and expanding the market’s scope. By prioritizing performance in all government support, he eradicated cronyism and bureaucratic corruption prevalent in developing nations. Publicly and privately, he consistently emphasized to the public, “Reward good performance over poor performance.”
As a result, in just 20 years, South Korea transformed a populace that had blamed poverty on others or fate for 5,000 years into a dynamic, self-reliant citizenry with a “can-do” spirit through the Saemaul Movement and competition. SMEs were nurtured into global conglomerates through fierce export performance competition, achieving the Western Industrial Revolution in just 20 years. The author evaluates Park’s leadership as a “differentiation leadership based on shin-sang-pil-beol that discards the weak, drives performance, and uplifts all.” Contrary to academic claims that the Park era was anti-market with heavy government intervention, Park’s leadership was strongly “pro-market differentiation leadership.” This misunderstanding stems from a failure to properly understand market functions (Jwa, 2017a, 2017b).
To illustrate Park’s market economy philosophy, consider the following quote:
“I believe the saying, ‘Heaven helps those who help themselves,’ is neither superstition nor religious sermon but an eternal truth... There is an old Korean proverb that even a nation cannot save the poor. I would revise it to say that no nation can help the idle. The government and neighbors can help diligent farmers, but no one can or will help farmers who lack diligence and the spirit of self-help... People must abandon the notion that the government should do everything for them without their own effort... On this Farmer’s Day, I urge our farmers to adopt a robust spirit of self-help, independence, and self-reliance to forge their own destinies with their own strength. This is the fundamental force for rural revitalization.” (Speech at Farmer’s Day, June 10, 1970)
2) Sacrificing Democracy for “Economizing Politics”: Yushin as Park’s Anguished Choice at the Crossroads of Democracy and Prosperity
Park’s performance-driven differentiation leadership provides insight into understanding his era’s Yushin (reform) authoritarian politics, which has been regarded as his worst political legacy. His economic differentiation strategy stood in stark contrast to the populism prevalent in South Korea and globally today, which indulges in egalitarian support policies that ignore performance. The opposition at the time, much like today, was captivated by socialist egalitarian ideologies, criticizing Park’s corporate, export, and industrial policies as favoritism, corruption, undemocratic, anti-agriculture, or debt-driven national ruin, opposing his industrialization strategy.
Park’s Yushin authoritarian politics was a deliberate choice to sacrifice democracy for prosperity at a critical juncture: whether to compromise with the opposition, superficially address underdevelopment through agricultural development, and maintain a façade of democratic politics, or to suppress opposition, sacrifice democracy, and pursue economic prosperity with strong incentives and differentiation policies. Park chose to sacrifice democracy to “economize politics” through robust industrial policies. History has proven his choice correct.
Nevertheless, Park was a believer in democracy. He consistently declared the Saemaul Movement a training ground for democracy, rigorously excluding populist political interference. He stated:
“Among the achievements of the Saemaul Movement, I am particularly proud that through its process, our farmers have learned through experience what democracy is and how to practice it correctly.” (Address at the National Conference of Saemaul Leaders, December 9, 1977)
Even regarding the Yushin regime, Park maintained critical self-reflection:
“In my view, the method of electing the president under the Yushin Constitution is flawed. How can it gain the people’s support? I will revise the constitution and step down.” (Park’s remarks in 1979, cited in Nam Duck-woo’s memoir, At the Crossroads of Economic Development, pp. 181–182, 2009, Samsung Economic Research Institute)
3) Practicing the Corporate-led Prosperity Paradigm
Corporations are a social technology invented by humanity to compensate for market failures in economic differentiation, practicing differentiation more robustly than markets. The joint-stock company, legalized in the early 19th century, drove the Industrial Revolution and remains the locomotive of capitalist economies today. Economies without modern corporate organizations, like communist systems, collapse into agrarian societies. While agrarian societies are market economies with weak corporate structures, capitalist economies are market economies dominated by corporate economies. Today’s U.S.-China trade war, disguised as a tariff conflict, is fundamentally a corporate war. Strong corporations sustain strong economies and nations. The Park era was the pinnacle of corporate economic vitality, achieving the Industrial Revolution in just 20 years, a feat unmatched since the Western Industrial Revolution.
During Park’s era, merchants and manufacturers—collectively referred to as industrialists—enjoyed unprecedented respect and pride in South Korea’s 5,000-year history. In contrast to the Joseon Dynasty or the Japanese colonial period, where the Confucian hierarchy of sa-nong-gong-sang (scholars, farmers, artisans, merchants) relegated merchants, scientists, and technicians to the margins, Park’s new hierarchy of sang-gong-nong-sa (merchants, artisans, farmers, scholars) elevated industrialists, scientists, and technicians as the vanguard of industrialization. Farmers and fishermen also became protagonists in the Saemaul Movement, overcoming seasonal hunger. However, the scholarly class—politicians, journalists, and academics engrossed in abstract theories—saw their influence wane relative to the industrial, scientific, and agricultural classes. This new class ideology aligned with the principles of capitalist corporate economic development, unlike the agrarian ideology of sa-nong-gong-sang.
Legendary entrepreneurs like Lee Byung-chul, Chung Ju-yung, and Kim Woo-joong, nurtured by Park’s performance-based differentiation policies, transformed SMEs into conglomerates in just 20 years. Notably, nearly all corporations driving South Korea’s economy today grew under Park’s differentiation incentive structure. Conversely, the absence of such policies after political democratization halted the historical trend of SMEs growing into large corporations.
Park’s industrial policies, such as export promotion and heavy chemical industrialization, were essentially corporate-led development policies. The success of these policies stemmed from fostering corporations, not the reverse, as mainstream neoclassical economics often claims by championing the growth of production factors. Prioritizing successful corporations through economic differentiation policies drove SMEs to become conglomerates, leading to industrial success. Thus, Park’s differentiation-based corporate-led development policies were the driving force behind South Korea’s Industrial Revolution, creating world-class corporations and manufacturing industries from scratch. The author terms this the “corporate-led prosperity” strategy for economic development (Jwa, 2017a, 2017b, 2024b).
Park’s philosophy of corporate-led prosperity is vividly captured in a conversation with American futurist Herman Kahn:
Herman Kahn: “South Korea’s economic growth is simply miraculous. I understand you had no formal training in economics. How did you achieve this great economic miracle without capital accumulation?”
Park Chung Hee: “I didn’t study economics formally. Knowing economics doesn’t make one adept at the real economy, just as handling money doesn’t make a banker a tycoon. The real economy is driven by business tycoons, not economists. I utilized them. To inspire and mobilize them, I devised ways to ensure their efforts would yield profits.”
Herman Kahn: “The East has produced sages like Confucius, Mencius, and Buddha, but how could a military man, presumed to know only war, devise such sophisticated economic strategies?”
Park Chung Hee: “It’s about dedication. When I pour my heart and soul into economic planning, wisdom naturally emerges. I spend countless sleepless nights crafting new economic plans, infusing every number with my dedication and spirit. When numbers come alive, success follows. Wisdom arises when numbers move.”
(Yoon Han-chae, Reexamining President Park Chung Hee, 2010, pp. 277–278. While the exact date of this conversation is unclear, the source’s reliability is supported by the author’s role as a defense intelligence officer with access to such dialogues and Herman Kahn’s emphasis on the role of corporations in South Korea’s development in his 1979 book.)
3. The Success History of Economic and Industrial Policies
Park’s economic and industrial policies were a rigorous implementation of the corporate-led prosperity paradigm, nurturing SMEs into conglomerates through incentive differentiation.
1) Releasing Tax-Evading Entrepreneurs
Immediately after the May 16, 1961 coup, Major General Park made the bold decision to release capable entrepreneurs imprisoned for tax evasion. The roots of Park’s corporate development and utilization policies trace back to this moment. The revolutionary government initially detained owners of about ten major firms (equivalent to mid-sized firms by today’s standards) for tax evasion as part of its anti-corruption pledge. However, after Lee Byung-chul, then in Japan, returned and explained the importance of entrepreneurs in economic development, Park accepted his argument. Despite opposition from revolutionary forces, he released the entrepreneurs on the condition that they participate in development and repay evaded taxes. These firms later formed the Federation of Korean Industries, actively engaging in foreign capital attraction and development planning. This marked the beginning of South Korea’s private-sector-led development, distinct from government- or state-owned-enterprise-led models in places like Taiwan or other developing nations (Jwa, 2017a, 2017b).
2) Export Promotion Policy Prioritizing Top-Performing Exporters
The export promotion policy rigorously supported top-performing exporters, spurring other firms to see exports as their lifeline and compete globally, achieving miraculous results. Exports grew from $100 million in 1964 to $1 billion in 1971, $10 billion in 1976, and $20 billion in 1981—a 200-fold increase in under 20 years. In 1961, November 30 was designated Export Day to commemorate reaching $100 million in exports, with outstanding exporters and firms receiving awards. Monthly economic briefings addressed export challenges, with immediate policy responses, maximizing firms’ motivation. The annual export awards ceremony, still held today, was akin to a national export industry competition, signaling to administrative and financial institutions to support market winners. Awarded exporters gained financial and tax benefits, enabling them to grow into conglomerates. The government’s reinforcement of market differentiation created powerful incentives, igniting the export-led Han River Miracle.
Additionally, the Saemaul factory development policy, part of the Saemaul Movement, supported only factories with above 30% export performance, excluding those without export records.
3) Heavy Chemical Industrialization Strategy Prioritizing Proven Exporters
From 1973, Park shifted from assembly-based exports to capital-intensive, high-value-added industries through the heavy chemical industrialization policy. This faced fierce opposition from mainstream economists and the opposition, who argued that South Korea should focus on agriculture and SMEs based on comparative advantage. The U.S. and international organizations also deemed it unfeasible due to the lack of successful precedents. Even in the early Fifth Republic in 1981, despite achieving $20 billion in exports, the policy was labeled a failure. Yet, it laid the foundation for South Korea’s manufacturing prowess, becoming a cornerstone of its economic advancement.
The policy incentivized exporters with proven performance to participate in heavy chemical industries with substantial support. Given the international scale of investments, which were beyond the capacity of Korean firms, the government supported or guaranteed up to 75% of the required capital through domestic and foreign financing, encouraging investment. Within a decade, heavy chemical infrastructure was completed, paving the way for South Korea’s industrial superpower status and enabling $20 billion in exports by the 1980s. The key to success was prioritizing capable firms rather than allocating resources through cronyism or political considerations, as is common in developing nations. Park monitored firms’ performance, replaced underperformers, and even scrutinized entrepreneurs’ personal lives to prevent moral hazard. By overcoming corruption and moral hazard through strict performance-based differentiation, the policy minimized failure risks.
This performance-driven industrial policy not only succeeded in exports and heavy chemical industrialization but also transformed 1960s SMEs into global conglomerates in 20 years. Park’s industrial policy is the only successful case of an industrial revolution since the Western Industrial Revolution, the only successful SME development policy, and one of the few economic development success stories of the late 20th century, earning global academic recognition as the “general theory of economic development” by the author (Jwa,2017a; Jwa and Lee, 2019).
4. Saemaul Movement: The Success of the Rural Revolution
The rural reform movement, piloted in the 1960s, evolved into the full-fledged Saemaul Movement in the 1970s, a pinnacle of Park’s performance-driven shin-sang-pil-beol differentiation policy (Jwa, 2018, 2014a).
In its first year, 34,000 villages received 300 bags of cement and one ton of steel rebar. In the second year, 16,000 high-performing villages received an additional 500 bags of cement, while 18,000 underperforming villages were excluded, intensifying inter-village competition. The second-year results showed that, alongside the 16,000 successful villages, 6,000 of the 18,000 unsupported villages participated independently, with 22,000 villages achieving results. The government designated these 22,000 as self-help villages for continued support, labeling the remaining 12,000 underperforming villages as basic villages and excluding them from support. This strict performance-based policy—supporting only “second- and third-year students” while excluding “first-years”—transformed over 90% of villages into self-reliant second- and third-year villages within five years, with rural incomes surpassing urban households, a miraculous achievement. By “discarding” underperforming villages, Park’s differentiation leadership elevated all to self-reliance.
This contrasts with today’s global trend of failed policies prioritizing the weak, which support “first-years” indiscriminately, expecting them to advance to “second- and third-years.” Such policies fail to motivate, as Park’s differentiation principle demonstrates. Proposals like universal basic income, which lack performance-based incentives, or educational policies undervaluing academic performance, are doomed to fail.
The Saemaul Movement aligned with Park’s corporate-led prosperity paradigm, treating villages as rural corporate entities. Bypassing traditional village headmen, it appointed Saemaul leaders as “village CEOs” to drive major projects through nationwide “Saemaul enterprise” competition. By organizing 34,000 rural SMEs, it compensated for the weak rural market economy, achieving rural revitalization.
Park’s economic differentiation policy through the Saemaul Movement is captured in the following quotes:
“There is no need to support villages where residents lack unity, cooperation, or self-help, squandering resources like cement. Support should prioritize villages with strong cooperation and self-help spirits... Each province should evaluate performance and support high-performing villages while excluding others. I have repeatedly said we help farmers with self-help spirits, and now all policies must rigorously implement this. Uniform distribution policies must be abandoned... No matter who governs, farmers who sit idly waiting for handouts cannot be saved, even in a hundred years. That is my conviction.” (Instructions at the Local Governors’ Conference, July 30, 1971)
“Some politicians promise to spoon-feed you while you sit idle, leading some unaware farmers to secretly hope for handouts. Such thoughts must be eradicated. Farmers with such mindsets will never prosper, nor will individuals or nations.” (Speech at the Rice Harvest Festival, September 29, 1971)
“The government will prioritize support for villages with strong motivation, self-reliance, and cooperative spirits. It is only natural that diligent and thrifty farmers receive priority support. Last year, we supported 32,000 villages to inspire effort, with mixed results. Learning from this, we will halve the target this year, supporting only 16,000 villages. In school terms, last year’s effort was like admitting everyone to first grade. This year, we will fail and hold back underperforming villages, supporting only those with good results in the second year. These villages, akin to second-year students, will receive more support, including from agricultural cooperatives and other sectors. In the fall, we will review the 16,000 villages, promoting the best to third-year status next year. Among last year’s failed villages, those showing effort and unity will be promoted to second-year status with equivalent support. Underperformers will fail again, while high performers advance to third-year status, receiving substantial support. This is the government’s basic support policy for the Saemaul Movement. Why? Uniform support has not yielded expected results. Supporting diligent villages first will create disparities by fall. One village may see increased income and improved environments, while another lags behind. By next year, the gap will widen. Supporting idle, decadent villages the same as diligent ones is not fair. Some villages will modernize, while others remain stagnant. Growing villages will soon thrive independently, and the government will then urge lagging villages to strive, supporting those showing effort and prioritizing others last. This is the policy to spark a revolution in our rural areas, and I believe it will succeed. Lagging villages may complain, but their voices should not sway us. As the saying goes, ‘Heaven helps those who help themselves.’” (Address at Gyeongbuk Provincial Office after Regional Inspection, February 7, 1972)
Park encouraged cooperative competition, explaining that “when two people combine efforts, 1+1 is not 2 but 2 plus alpha (1+1=2+α, α≥0),” a synergy akin to the butterfly effect in complexity science and economics, showcasing his remarkable foresight over 50 years ago. (UNESCO-registered Saemaul Movement Guidelines, April 26, 1972, delivered at the Saemaul Income Enhancement Conference Speech, May 18, 1972)
5. Conclusion: Park Chung Hee, a National Hero Combining King Sejong and Admiral Yi Sun-sin
The economic success of the Park era was achieved through rigorous performance-based incentive differentiation policies, uplifting a disheartened populace and corporations, fostering a “can-do” national spirit, and driving citizens to compete for prosperity. However, today’s South Korea, with its anti-Park paradigm of egalitarian democratic policies that ignore performance, has turned citizens into government-dependent, regressive actors, exhibiting premature aging at the threshold of advanced nationhood, hastening low growth and polarization.
Poet and historian Lee Eun-sang testified before his passing that Park, by eradicating 5,000 years of poverty—an ascendant, achieved what even King Sejong could not, and by thwarting Kim Il-sung’s reinvasion ambitions without bloodshed, achieved a “face-to-face victory” that even Admiral Yi Sun-sin could not. Park is the unparalleled hero of 5,000 years of Korean history, combining the virtues of King Sejong and Admiral Yi. As noted, American futurist Herman Kahn praised Park as an economic thinker comparable to Buddha, Confucius, and Mencius for achieving the Han River Miracle by prioritizing corporations, contrary to mainstream economics. Contemporary and posthumous evaluations by world leaders generally align with these superlative assessments.
The Park era represents the fastest construction of a modern capitalist industrial nation by a newly independent country in human history. Unlike other industrializations reliant on colonial exploitation or domestic capital, South Korea’s revolution started from nothing, leveraging foreign capital to nurture corporations, open export markets, and build heavy chemical industries, succeeding independently. This enabled a self-reliant defense industry, strengthened alliances with the U.S. and free-world nations, and established a robust anti-communist security system, preventing communist invasion without war and building a prosperous capitalist democratic nation.
Park’s nation-building and economic prosperity proved that corporate success is the key to capitalist economic development and national prosperity, having foreseen the doomed fate of communist and socialist systems that negated capitalist corporations. It also offers a model for reviving capitalist nations, including South Korea, which faces economic polarization and democratic failure due to underestimating the role of corporations.
Yet, South Korea today excessively erases and disparages Park. He candidly reflected, “As a human, I have not governed without errors. But I have not worked for contemporary popularity, always mindful of how future historians will record my deeds. My constant thought has been, ‘How can we live proudly, as well as other nations?’” (Spring 1977 press conference). No human endeavor is flawless, and no achievement is without faults. The great accomplishments of human civilization all carry flaws. A flawless hero or achievement is but a fantasy.
References
-
Nam, D. W. (2009). At the Crossroads of Economic Development: Memoir of Nam Duck-woo. Samsung Economic Research Institute.
-
Yoon, H. C. (2010). Reexamining President Park Chung Hee. Science Love, Seoul, South Korea.
-
Jang, K. S. (2007). I Still Cannot Stop: Memoir of Jang Kyung-soon (pp. 308–309). Today.
-
Jwa, S. H. (2017a). A General Theory of Economic Development: Towards a Capitalist Manifesto. Edward Elgar.
-
Jwa, S. H. (2017b). The Rise and Fall of Korea’s Economic Development: Lessons for the Developing and Developed Economies. Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Jwa, S. H. (2018). Understanding Korea’s Saemaul Undong: Theory, Evidence, and Implication. Seoul Journal of Economics, 31(2), 195–236.
-
Jwa, S. H. (2024a). Korea’s Saemaul Undong Revisited as Rural Development Game for Poverty Eradication: A New Development Economics Perspective. The Pakistan Development Review, 63(1), 19–44.
-
Jwa, S. H. (2024b). What Causes Polarized Stagnation, Corporate Economy, or Welfare State?: Insights from New Development Economics. Economics & Politics, 1–33.
-
Jwa, S. H., & Lee, S.-K. (2019). Resurrecting the Industrial Policy as Development Policy Based on Korean Experiences: Towards a Pro-Market Industrial Policy. World Economics, 20(4), 59–97.
-
Jwa, S. H., & Yoon, Y. (2004). Political Institutions and Economic Development: A Study in Economic Discrimination and Political Philosophy. Seoul Journal of Economics, 17(3), 275–307.
-
Kahn, H. (1979). World Economic Development: 1979 and Beyond (Chapter 6). Routledge, NY and London.
|
